Micro$$$oft taking away more of our rights...
Companies can now pay Microsoft to allow their mail to circumvent Hotmail spam filters. This reeks worse than Grizzly Adams' underpants.
More here
Quote:
Microsoft offers anti-spam bypass
Hotmail, MSN operator adopts program that will allow marketers to bypass filters by paying a bond.
May 5, 2004: 9:55 AM EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp. said Wednesday it has adopted an e-mail program by IronPort Systems Inc. that will allow legitimate marketers to thread the gauntlet of spam filters protecting its e-mail services.
Microsoft offers anti-spam bypass
Hotmail, MSN operator adopts program that will allow marketers to bypass filters by paying a bond.
May 5, 2004: 9:55 AM EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp. said Wednesday it has adopted an e-mail program by IronPort Systems Inc. that will allow legitimate marketers to thread the gauntlet of spam filters protecting its e-mail services.
More here
Comments
Hotmail sucked before (MS Passport, plenty downtime, spam, etc.) and now it sucks even more. No reason to use it when there's a zillion other services.
Nowadays Hotmail and Yahoo addresses are often not accepted for forums and the like, since they're abused too much.
I wasn't aware it was an unalienable right to use Hotmail according to your own terms. One can argue about privacy laws just as iTMS detractors can argue about how using m4p2mp4/playfair is "fair use," but it's silly. Both services present you with all-emcompassing ToS agreements that allow them to legally do this.
Joe Hotmail's "rights" were signed away the minute he clicked "OK."
Up until iTunes 4.5 I was all for iTMS. Then I witnessed Apple, seemingly with all the effort of stating "make it so," increasing the artificial restrictions placed on users.
THAT is why EULAs, outrageous online ToS and DRM are all bad - what should be the domain of governments becomes the domain of corporations who exist to serve themselves, not "the people".
That said, it's hard to see Microsoft letting companies spam you as "taking away more of our rights," after all it's not changing what you can do with email once you have recieved it.
Barto
I'm saying this is totally different to iTMS, which I think Eugene was wrong to bring up. Almost all aspects of the music industry are textbook symptoms of market failure.
Barto
Originally posted by Barto
It is not right for [Many companies, not just Apple], regardless of legality, to dictate to people what THEY do with THEIR data.
You may find this interesting. You are certainly not alone on this.
Is that the sound of the Entertainment industries shaking their boots?
*rattle* *rattle* 8)
Sure, I hate MS as much as the next guy, but at least get your critisisms correct. You do not have the "right" to dictate how somebody else must provide you with free email.
I guess I just wonder, more generally, how much control we have over signing away our rights. That case in Germany where someone was looking for someone to eat and someone responded and was killed by the other person. Was that ok because he "signed away" his right to live? I dunno. (Not the same thing, but it deals with similar issues.)
Originally posted by Barto
I'm saying this is totally different to iTMS, which I think Eugene was wrong to bring up. Almost all aspects of the music industry are textbook symptoms of market failure.
Barto
Oh Jebus.
Both services present you with rules, restrictions and caveats.
Both services require your voluntary submission.
Both services are one of many sources of e-mail or music.
People think they have the basic human right to do whatever they want, even if they agreed to be restricted by the ToS. It's just like the ridiculousness of the California state assembly-woman who proposed a ban on Google Gmail because of privacy issues. She has no concept of submission.
Both are awareness issues, not rights issues. You have the right to boycott both services. You lose nothing by doing so.
Barto
Would make it awful hard to feel safely employed and safe with big purchases like that of a home or automobile. I am of the opinion that the 'right' for two parties to engage in contracts is more important than the 'right' to force companies to give you something for free.
Choose your free email based upon what you give in exchange for that service. Agreeing to receiving targeted advertising (in exchange for email) isn't appealing to me but it certainly doesn't encroach upon anyone's rights.
Take responsibility for your own life.
Originally posted by Barto
Oh Jebus yourself. Companies shouldn't be able to make laws, whenever market failure occurs those "laws" made by companies are just like when democracy breaks down: you get f'd in the a.
Barto
You'd get f--ked in the ass more often if you couldn't fall back on liability and contractual obligation. Nobody said a contract was a "law," but a company has every right to revoke a contract if you break the rules.